Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

[Acert93]

It has nothing to do with "hardcore" We're talking launch prices if you bought it from a store when it came out. PS1 + launch title + controller + tax = close to $400. In other words, the "take home" cost of these consoles is way over $299. So if you won't pay more than $299, you're not going to be playing one.

Obviously software is taken into consideration.

If it launches for $400, I can wait until it hits $300 and I can get some of the first gen games for maybe $20-$30 used and/or some of the discount top sellers. So that $100 could be 3 games for me or at least 2 new games.

I am price conscious and I want the best bang for buck (hey, I am poor... relatively). I may only buy 2-4 games a year and play them continually. So that $100 difference could be my ENTIRE game budget for the YEAR.

Every person is different... I have had my GCN for 3 years and have 12 games for it. 10 games I really like. For my PC I have bought 3 in the same period. Only maybe 5 of all those titles were purchased for $50, everything else I waited for to grab at $10-$30 (got 2 of my Cube games for $10 each, Wave Race, Rogue Squadron and quite a few at $20).

So my gaming budget to buy titles is not huge. I rent sometimes, but only buy what I know I will play.

Anyhow, an extra $100 for a console is an extra $100 in software I wont be able to buy.

If they come in a lot over $300 I will have to wait--and that means I get better 2nd gen HW + there will be better software and discount titles. So I will just have to let BF2 hold me over!

 

[jvd]

jvd of course left out that it's yet undetermined if Sony will actually only go with a 1x speed blu-ray drive (IMO unlikely) or in fact a 2x speed (IMO likely).

it has no speed so i went with a 1x . Don't see the problem . If they had listed a speed i would have put it in

Do we have a time frame for when 2x bluray drives will be in mass production at reasonable costs ?

 

[mckmas8808]

jvd of course left out that it's yet undetermined if Sony will actually only go with a 1x speed blu-ray drive (IMO unlikely) or in fact a 2x speed (IMO likely).

If we assume that Blu-Ray goes for a single speed drive, there's still one big advantage that more storage brings: because of the massive storage space, data can be stored in redundant blocks to reduce seeks (expensive on optical drives) and improve access times significantly. There are a number of games that already do this with todays DVDs (I think one of the GTA's comes to mind).

I think it is clear that over the next few years, data will increase up to a point in which a DVD will probably have sufficient space available, but will be too tight to also store them in a redundant form. Having 25GB available, even if not fully used, can be used to an advantage.

Another pro is also that with more space, developers may find ways to use that to include extras. Of course, not all are going to do this, but you never know. Next generation will last for 6 years after all.

If Sony does go with a 2x Blu-Ray drive - coppled with the larger storage and therefore the ability to have redundant blocks of data, loading times could improve quite a bit over what you could achieve with a 12x dvd-drive.

Costs would be a con for Blu-Ray obviously, but not one that should be relevant to us consumers as long as the price isn't forwarded to us consumers. Given Blu-Ray is also an optical format, the costs for those developers should be a minimum. Sony will have big costs, but they obviously decided it's worth it if they can get an advantage for the movie-industry.

I just had to quote this post from Phil because its one of the reasons why I think the PS3 will outsell the X360. If Sony would have needed a good reason to put in the Blu-Ray drive at a board meeting Phil could have made them choose to do it with that quote.

People have said for months that because most games don't use the whole DL DVD that a bigger disc is not needed. Yeah right. Read this post from inefficient, it explains way a Blu-Ray disc will be needed in the future.

But then some large PC games like UT2k4 already approach 6gigs. And the texture sizes for these games are optimized for gfx cards with 128mb of ram.
xbox and ps2 games are optimized to fit in a much smaller memory space. But once the next game games start comming, I can see resources in both textures and mesh data blowing up to exceed the space of a normal DVD.

 

[jvd]

But then some large PC games like UT2k4 already approach 6gigs. And the texture sizes for these games are optimized for gfx cards with 128mb of ram.
xbox and ps2 games are optimized to fit in a much smaller memory space. But once the next game games start comming, I can see resources in both textures and mesh data blowing up to exceed the space of a normal DVD.

6 gigs ? my hardrive install is less than 2 gigs for that game . Eq2 which is a massive game with massive amounts of voice acting takes up 1.4 -1.8 gigs of space and that game was built around having 512 megs of graphics ram for the optimal playing experiance

 

[Acert93]

HL2 has the most detailed/varied textures I have seen in any game. It, with CS:S, take up 4GB. (And that does not include the benefit of 3Dc for normal maps).

Oh, and it cost $40,000,000.00 to make.

There WILL be games that need 2 DL DVDs. The question is how many. PC games have been running on HD resolutions for years, and current games are designed around systems that need at least 512MB of RAM and 128MB of Video memory + a HDD.

So yes, FF, GT5, and others will need more space. But that space comes at a huge development price. How many devs have $10M or more to develop a title? Expecting to hot swap a few titles is not the end of the world. It will turn away some consumers, but it is the price to pay to come out before a HD standard optical media is agreed upon.

On a side not, look at the N64. It had some pretty small ROMs, but when developers hit the wall they got smarter about their content and found ways around the limiations. If a game was 9GB and it had to get down to 8.5GB, I am sure that they could find reasonable ways to fit that. Developers are just very used to just putting stuff on the disk with no after thought, at least compared to 6 years ago.

 

[Mordecaii]

EQ2 takes up 4.7 gigs installed and comes on 9 CD's or 2 DVD's. The thing is, it uses basically no FMV. Also, I thought games that weren't installed (aka console games) had to take up more space on an optical format due to the fact that they would often include redundant data, along with the fact that you wouldn't want to use compression and would want to optimize the data for streaming. I'm just saying that certain games will likely be able to use more than a DL DVD this next gen. Remember, these consoles are going to last at least 5 years and I fully expect that 5 years from now games will be well above 9 gigs.

 

[jvd]

errr i'm looking directly at my eq2 install and its at 2.3 gigs right now Now i haven't patched in a month but i highly doubt it will add another 2 gigs to my file size . You must have not reinstalled the game recently (they are horrible with patches and if you reinstall they normaly have a combine patch that cuts out alot of space ) or you've downloaded the mini expansions . I don't have that free one

The thing is, it uses basically no FMV

You really want fmv when we will have games on the level of gears of war ?

I'm just saying that certain games will likely be able to use more than a DL DVD this next gen

but more than two dl dvds ?

I highly doubt any normal consumer will complain about having to get up to change a disc once during a 20 hour plus game .

Many are fine with changing thier music cds to go from one part of the album to the second part and those are two 74 min cds or to change out a dvd (lord of the rings extended or special feature disc ) and those are 2-3 hour movies

Now really if anyone needs more than 14 gigs this gen i can see the need for bluray but we would need to tripple your eq2 installed file to fill that much room and the amount of areas , content and the fact that every npc in that game has voice audio and so do all the monsters in high quality sound is saying something .

 

[PC-Engine]

I think developers need to learn how to lay down data on DVDs or BR.

It's been shown that GCN games have the fastest load times redundant data blocks or not...

 

[Mordecaii]

Some games you can't switch DVD's on... Take RPG's for example. There is no way you can switch a DVD on an open-ended RPG because at any time you could go to any area of the game. Same with sports games. (By the way, I've been playing EQ2 for the past month, and it's completely updated with the mini expansion, and it says 4.7 gigs when I highlight the folder and check the properties). Imagine playing a game like Elder Scrolls, and imagine you cross some invisible zone barrier and the game pauses and says "Please insert disc 2"... It just wouldn't work. And with RPG's like FF and such using lots of FMV (which, as discussed in a thread on PSINext) won't go away simply because the graphics this gen are better. Also, next-gen RPG's are expected to use recorded voices, which as you mentioned take up lots of space. To be honest, EQ2 was rather a small game compared to some other RPG's (in terms of landmass... just compare it to some of the other MMO's out there). I'm not saying that you won't be able to make great games on DVD's, just that there should be some benefit to having BR for certain genre's.

 

[dukmahsik]

in regards to dvd not having enough space, that simply isn't the issue. having more space isn't something on the top 5 list devs want in a medium.

 

[Bjorn]

But then some large PC games like UT2k4 already approach 6gigs. And the texture sizes for these games are optimized for gfx cards with 128mb of ram.
xbox and ps2 games are optimized to fit in a much smaller memory space. But once the next game games start comming, I can see resources in both textures and mesh data blowing up to exceed the space of a normal DVD.

6 gigs ? my hardrive install is less than 2 gigs for that game . Eq2 which is a massive game with massive amounts of voice acting takes up 1.4 -1.8 gigs of space and that game was built around having 512 megs of graphics ram for the optimal playing experiance

The DVD probably has duplicate data to speed up load times. Something that the BR player on the PS3 will allow for in abundance. And i definitely want a BR to play HD movies on it, it'll connect nicely to my Sony HS50 projector

Now, MS could of course make a new version of the XBox 360 (as has been mentioned here) with a BR/HDDVD player when (if) the HDDVD/BR war end (rumours has it that there are talks between the two camps) but i doubt that they'll ever be able to release games on HD discs since they'll have to support the "old" DL DVD's also in that case.

 

[Acert93]

I think developers need to learn how to lay down data on DVDs or BR.

It's been shown that GCN games have the fastest load times redundant data blocks or not...

Good point.

Btw, unification talks are dead according to Matsushita.

So the PS3 comes out in Spring 2006 and undercuts all the BR partners with $1000 drives (that help recoup R&D), ouch. I would sure hate to be Sony if people are buying my console, that I sell at a loss, just to watch movies

I guess I can see both sides of the arguement. Bigger is nice, but from the production standpoint if they can just switch right over to HD DVD and can produce movies quicker it keeps their costs down. Lower costs theoretically mean lower consumer costs; higher production costs almost guarantee higher consumer cost. The tri-layer 45GB format levels the field some, but Sony owns some movie studios.

It is going to be ugle ::sigh:: With the PS3 + owning movie studios that will only support BR I think BR has a better chance, but it is going to be ugly before it gets better. Competing formats means less movies on both platforms (i.e. some studios will just take a wait and see approach).

So yeah, the size will be great for games for Sony, a big plus... but the BR/HD DVD war is going to be ugly--and consumers will ultimately lose either way.

 

[PC-Engine]

Has it ever been shown that redundant data block improves load times significantly? I do not think so.

 

[Acert93]

Now, MS could of course make a new version of the XBox 360 (as has been mentioned here) with a BR/HDDVD player when (if) the HDDVD/BR war end (rumours has it that there are talks between the two camps) but i doubt that they'll ever be able to release games on HD discs since they'll have to support the "old" DL DVD's also in that case.

Correct. And for those games, like open ended RPGs that do take more than 9GB of space, they will most likely stick very frequent art assets and the engine on the HDD and on Disk 1, and on Disk 2 everything else and that disk will have to remain in game.

I guess that is the benefit of a 20GB HDD standard with larger ones in the future.

 

[jvd]

There is no way you can switch a DVD on an open-ended RPG because at any time you could go to any area of the game

Not for nothing but if a game is that big (rpg wise ) it will most likely take you a long time to go from one area to another . You can also put a zone on both discs as a buffer zone . There are many easy ways around it one of the ways is to limit the need to go back to the begining of the game . So while its open ended after lvl 30 there should be little need to go back to lvl 1 zones .



A game like elder scrolls wont have fmv and i would be suprised if its on more than 1 dvd . then you have to factor in compresion . All the textures on the consoles are most likely going to come compressed . On the pc you need multiple textures at diffrent quality lvls . On the console you have fixed hardware so there would be no reason not to put your normal maps in 3Dc compression which will reduce the space needed in half for your normal maps

And with RPG's like FF and such using lots of FMV (which, as discussed in a thread on PSINext) won't go away simply because the graphics this gen are better

that imho is a flaw of the game design. With games like gow (once again ) why would u need fmv to tell your story

Also, next-gen RPG's are expected to use recorded voices, which as you mentioned take up lots of space

But eq2 has every single npc in the game with and monster voice scripted . They all have multiple lines and it cost alot of money to do because this is a game that will be getting 15$ a month from 300k gamers for a good 6-7 years

To be honest, EQ2 was rather a small game compared to some other RPG's (in terms of landmass... just compare it to some of the other MMO's out there).

Dude i've played many many mmorpgs and when you compare the land mass + the dungon areas its one of the biggest mmorpgs out .

I'm not saying that you won't be able to make great games on DVD's, just that there should be some benefit to having BR for certain genre's.

So far you've given two . So you can have an open ended rpg (which you can do with disc swapping ) and for games with lots of fmv


Eq2 is huge and i doubt many games will come close in the land mass + dungon + voice scripting in it and that game is target at 512 meg cards as optimal and its install foot print is only 4.12 gigs Which may we remind u is single layer dvd . That means you can fit twice the amount onto one dl dvd or to allow for redundant data you can put in 1 and a half times on one dl dvd


Certianly more space is better and not having to swap out a disc is a perk . But i highly doubt anyone will need more than two dl dvds . This isn't like the ps1 and saturn where some games were up to 5 cds .


But hey we will see we have plenty of time to find out

 

[Mordecaii]

Now, MS could of course make a new version of the XBox 360 (as has been mentioned here) with a BR/HDDVD player when (if) the HDDVD/BR war end (rumours has it that there are talks between the two camps) but i doubt that they'll ever be able to release games on HD discs since they'll have to support the "old" DL DVD's also in that case.

Correct. And for those games, like open ended RPGs that do take more than 9GB of space, they will most likely stick very frequent art assets and the engine on the HDD and on Disk 1, and on Disk 2 everything else and that disk will have to remain in game.

I guess that is the benefit of a 20GB HDD standard with larger ones in the future.

So you're telling me that my consoles will have to install games? I don't think people would be happy with that. The fact is, more space isn't a bad thing for developers.

 

[jvd]

So you're telling me that my consoles will have to install games? I don't think people would be happy with that. The fact is, more space isn't a bad thing for developers.

Who said that ?

They can stream the data onto the hardrive while playing . to improve all load times and for a huge mmorpg or open ended rpg where you can go from place to place very quickly it will most likely be faster than a bluray drive

They can set aside a certian amount of space on the drive for game cacheing and when the game is loading up load up the zone to memory and then start loading the zones around it into the hardrive for quicker swapping when you move on .

 

[DemoCoder]

Sorry, but disc swapping is annoying. Case in point: FF7/8 on PSone.

All of the arguments you make about BR could have equally been made about Sony when they elected to put DVD in PS/2 (the decision was made back when DVD as a format was in its infancy).

Games would have worked FINE on CD. But guess what, eventually developers took full advantage of DVD. The argument that "you'll never need more than X space" has been proven wrong OVER AND OVER again. Something that looks huge today is tiny in 2 years.

I just installed a terabyte raid array in my house not to long ago, and it is TRIVIAL for me to fill it up.

And Sony won't lose everything if people buy the PS3 as a media center/BR player, since Sony makes money SELLING movies as well. Remeber, the own several movie studios and thousands of movies.

I will buy an XB360, but it won't be my media center. It will be related to a games console and I probably WON'T buy an HDDVD adapter for it, but will instead by a separate HDDVD player. PS3 is much more likely to be my media center hub.

I am also angry that MS decided to use a proprietary 2.4Ghz RF wireless protocol for their controllers instead of Wifi or BT. I already have enough interference with various devices on the 2.4Ghz band, now I have to suffer my neighborhoods XB360's interfering as well? Why didn't they just adopt BT?

 

[Acert93]

All of the arguments you make about BR could have equally been made about Sony when they elected to put DVD in PS/2 (the decision was made back when DVD as a format was in its infancy).

Well there are a lot more points than those above... heading to bed though. If you want the links just ask and I can past them

The argument that "you'll never need more than X space" has been proven wrong OVER AND OVER again.

No one said that you would not need more space ever; I expect certain games to exceed 8.5GB. But there are a host of factors that go into this and looking at previous generations in general is not enough.

(the decision was made back when DVD as a format was in its infancy).

When the decision was made was irrelevant; it is when it came to market.

When the PS2 came out I could go to my local Blockbust or Hollywood video for a full two years before hand (if not longer) and rent DVD movies. The local Fred Meyers and Walmart both carried DVDs. DVD was by far the dominant format and had the majority of support. There was no competition (I guess there was the DivX or whatnot, but never saw it in stores and have no clue about it... that is how "popular" it was).

The drives themselves were also fairly cheap. They had dropped down well under $300 (the PS2 launch price). DVDs were hitting mass market penetration and were HOT and the DVD player playback feature on the PS2 was a great perk to take the plunge.

And the great thing about DVDs is that they made movies look better on your NORMAL TV.

Turn today. I cannot walk into my local store and get a BR player or a BR movie. There is a looming format war, prices are expected to be high, and to get any real benefit you need a HD TV. While I love HD devices, they have a very minor install base compared to DVDs.

To assume HD optical media will take off is making a basic assumption: That there is a market to feed it. Everyone has a TV (well almost, I do not). A much smaller percentage have HD TVs. And while that market will be more than happy to get a HD player, it is still in its infancy.

There are no guarantees. Sony has an invested interest to make sure BR gets market penetration. MS does not.

And Sony won't lose everything if people buy the PS3 as a media center/BR player, since Sony makes money SELLING movies as well. Remeber, the own several movie studios and thousands of movies.

Sony does lose out. If they lose $100 a console, how many movies do they need to sell to recoup that? Sony would much prefer people who ONLY want a HD movie player to buy hardware they make a profit on.

Also, you are forgetting Sony has partners, like Matsushita (Panasonic). Panasonic has invested in BluRay also and NEEDS to recoup their R&D.

When DVD players came out they were a premium selling pretty high. If the PS3 is $300 you really cut into that market. Why buy a $500 BR player when you can get a $300 PS3 that plays moves, games, has internet access through WiFi, a HDD slot, and a ton of other cool features.

Sony's consumer electronic devision is hurting. I personally believe it is a bad move to bundle a high profit item, like BR, on a money losing system. Even if you are only mildly interested in gaming, if you have to choose between a $300 PS3 with BR or a $300 BR player, most consumers are going to take the better value in the PS3. Kids, friends, etc... can use it and internet access and possible PVR features are pretty sweet. But instead of making a hefty $200 profit on the BR player Sony loses $100.

How are they supposed to recoup a profit on the R&D doing that?

And if I was their partners, like Panasonic, who have put a lot of money int this technology and I do NOT sell movies, I would be pissed. Instead of selling $700 players like hot cakes, I am getting undersold by my "partner" and their $300 console.

Btw, one of the big reasons the big companies are pushing a new format is because DVD has become so CHEAP it is not a commadity with razor thin margins. They are moving to BR/HD DVD to bump up profits. As an executive, why would I want a format like BR to succeed when it means I have to drastically cut prices on my HD players just to compete.

That is a recipie for an ailing consumer electronics devision to spiral out of control.

I am also angry that MS decided to use a proprietary 2.4Ghz RF wireless protocol for their controllers instead of Wifi or BT. I already have enough interference with various devices on the 2.4Ghz band, now I have to suffer my neighborhoods XB360's interfering as well? Why didn't they just adopt BT?

I have heard some BT implimentations can have a lot of latency and suck batteries.

After using the Wavebird--being able to play from way far back, through walls, no lag, LONG battery life--I can say I am not upset at it for my use. Does suck for you though if you have disruption in that frequency. That is not cool man

 

[Mordecaii]

I disagree with you Acert that companies such as Matsushita should be angry with Sony for releasing the PS3 with BR on it. If HD-DVD wins out, then every company that spent money on R&D for BR would lose their money. They would all have to spend more money to gear up to produce HD-DVD products. If PS3 contributes towards BR winning the format war, then all the companies backing BR win. Also, I think I read somewhere that the figures for PS2 market penetration were something like 1 in every 5 households in the U.S. What about the other 3/4 of the households? If BR does become the standard, then most of them will buy a standalone BR player eventually (notice I said EVENTUALLY), and thus the companies that only manufacture BR players will still benefit. Heck, I'm sure over half the people who buy a PS3 will also buy a separate BR player.